>Not to scare you, but your symptoms sound like mercury toxicity, and I just
>read that dentists have a very high rate compared to the general populace of
>mercury toxicity.

Paul:
>>I wouldn't think that mercury is the problem since when I am on my usual
>>horrible diet I don't get those symptoms.

I agree that your symptoms probably had another cause.

>Also, I think these sites about amalgam fillings on the internet grossly
mismanage >facts and findings about the mercury in the amalgam fillings.

This is true but let us not forget that mercury is one of the most toxic
substances known to man and that no minimum levels of human tolerance have
ever been established.

>The American Dental Assoc.  has done and studied many many studies on the
situation and >has found that the mercury levels are so low as to not be
significant in a person's >health, estimating that the amount of mercury
taken in by the body to be much less
>than the amount taken in if one was to eat fish once a month.

The Czech researcher Dr.Romauld Hudececk estimated earlier this year at a
seminar he held at the American Academy of Biological Dentistry in Carmel,
CA that a man would have to eat a whale a week to match the amount of
mercury leaching from the amalgam fillings of the average person.

>If you are thinking that naturally the ADA would support a material by
>which most dentists make their money, you are wrong.  If it was found to be
>truly a health hazard dentists would zoom to the top of money makers since
>so many billions of restorations would need to be replaced.

As I see it the ADA is not very motivated for change as it already has the
market cornered.  Besides, it requires an open mind and a much higher level
of technical craftsmanship to work with these newer materials which would
necessitate extensive post graduate training, and if the ADA admitted that
it for decades have been jeopardizing the health of the public by allowing
a highly toxic substance to be put into millions of mouths, it would face
huge class action suits.

>And the alternatives are more costly.  In fact, the biggest hassle most
dentists
>have is trying to get patients to accept either crowns or white composite
>fillings instead of amalgam, because of the cost and the fact that
>insurance companies won't pay for these when amalgam can be placed more
>cheaply.

That some patients are un-educated on the issue, hardly makes mercury a
safe substance to put in our mouths.

>Your comment is a good one, though, and should be considered.  Just don't
>take these mercury internet sites too seriously.

Several Northern European countries (as well as the WHO) have legislated
against the use of mercury, and Sweden is supposed to be implementing a
total ban soon.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]